Natural Law

- Homily from the 19th Sunday in Ordinary Time-

I leave town for a couple of weeks of retreat and holiday, and all hell breaks loose. When I left, church and state seemed to be happily separate; I return to find a cartoon of the Pope nailing a cross to the top of the Peace Tower at Parliament House, and letters to the editor demanding that the Prime Minister intervene in the appointment of bishops. When I left, it was a year on from World Youth Day, a period in which it seemed the Pope could do no wrong; now I find he is once more the devil incarnate, and the Church declared to be "utterly irrelevant" to the modern world. And in papers arguing for the inclusion of same-sex couples in the significant social institution of marriage, we find referring to marriage as "a lifestyle choice, rather like woodworking or golf - both of which often inspire more devotion, passion and lifelong commitment than does marriage." No wonder they call this the silly season.

For those who, like myself, were not here last week, I understand that Fr. Pat invited us to keep in mind that in all this debate, the sensitivities and feelings of ordinary people in our church and university community are at issue, and that what is discussed abstractly at times refers to the very real struggles and hopes and dreams of very particular people we worship with, and of some among our siblings or friends, our sons and daughters, our religious communities. He also indicated that these issues around same-sex marriage, seemingly so confused even after a fortnight of newspaper columns and letters, are not going to be adequately discussed in one homily or even a few. Because of this, Fr Pat has begun planning some forums for a deeper education for all of us on the issue and on the Church's position. I'm sure he will speak further of this in the announcements.

In the meantime, perhaps today I could take a step back from the actual issue of same-sex relationships and look at some underlying theological issues which have been confused over and over again in the public discussions of the Church's interventions over the past weeks. The least we can do, as members of the Catholic Church, whatever our current position on this issue, is to try to understand the mindset and concepts being used in Church teaching, such as the latest Vatican document, so that we do not make the same mistakes in analysing Church teaching that non-Catholics might make. These clarifications have to do with the notion of natural law, and with the notion of identity.

Let's hear some quotes from the newspaper discussions of the past week: "I don't believe I should be imposing my morality on other people." The Church is trying to "impose its will." The Pope has no business "telling Canada's …politicians that their religion obliges them to impose Catholic doctrine on a nation." "We must not have a theocracy in Canada." What if "a Jewish PM … had rabbis telling him that he had a duty to ban all non-kosher food from Canada?" These statements misread what kind of issue we are dealing with. If the Church had proposed, in the olden days - when Fr. Pat was young - that all Canadians were forbidden to eat meat on Friday, then this would indeed be an example of the Church imposing its rules on the nation. For this is an issue of positive law, of Church rules, devised at a particular time for the good of the Church community. The Church has authority to change such rules - to change its discipline, and much of its canon law. But just as Jewish people distinguish between their food laws, which are for members of the Jewish community alone, and the basic commandments of the moral law, which are applicable to all people, so too does the Christian Church when it distinguishes between its rules and canon law, on the one hand, and the natural law, on the other.

The natural law, under which sexuality and marriage are covered, is not within the Church's domain to change. All she can do is to discern it, to propose it, but not to alter it. For the natural law refers to the basic nature of what it is to be human, what is common to all human beings, independent of belief, culture etc. Since this natural law is so hard to define, some doubt its existence. But any argument for universal human rights or for understandings of justice which transcend cultures would seem to presume that there is such a thing as natural moral law. The natural law is about what is good or bad for all human beings - what leads to the genuine flourishing of individuals and to the common good. Now we may disagree with the Church's assessment of the goodness or wickedness of particular actions. But we need to be clear that this is the arena of debate - the natural law, what is good for all human beings. From this viewpoint, the Church is not encouraging politicians to impose a Catholic rule, like the old 'no meat on Fridays' or the obligation to go to Sunday Mass, but to recognise what she discerns as being for the good, not just of Catholics, but of all humans.

Another mistake that is made about the natural law was made in the Toronto Star by Tom Harpur, who should know better if he is the theologian he claims to be. He confuses the natural law with the laws of nature, claiming that 'natural' here refers to what occurs in nature. This is what he argued: "The argument about same-sex unions not being natural … is the most bizarre attempt to twist reality in the entire discussion. Recent, detailed, lengthy documentaries … have proved beyond doubt that same-sex attraction and same-sex genital acts occur not just among humans but throughout the animal world…. Homosexuality is as natural to other primates, for example, as eating bananas. Dolphins, octopuses, geese … - all experience it."

Being celibate, I refrain from spending too much time exploring the sex lives of dolphins, octopuses, geese or even platypi. But this is all beside the point. Natural law in theology, as any basic dictionary of theology makes clear, is not about what is natural in the animal or plant worlds. It is about the natural moral law for humans - what is natural, what is God's creative plan, for human beings. While we humans are animals, that is not our whole nature. For we are the only species created in the image and likeness of God, and we take the form of embodied spirits. If what occurs in nature is a good model for humans in the area of sexuality, then we're in trouble. What of the proverbial promiscuity and prodigious child-bearing of rabbits; or the poor cicada, cocooned for 17 years and then, when free at last, is migh be caught by a bird before even having a chance to mate; or that species - is it the praying mantis? - where the female eats her mate after having sex. Natural law is about what is natural to human beings in their unique identity. Again, we may disagree on what the natural law entails, but it is not, contra Tom Harpur, about the laws of nature.

In reflection on the natural law, the Pope is not to be as easily dismissed as he often is, said to be ignorant of any genuine understanding of human sexuality. Some dismiss him on the grounds that he is old - an ageist slur; or that he is celibate, as though celibacy is not a way of living human sexuality, or that he is Polish, a racist attack. In fact, he has produced a philosophy and theology of the body, of human sexuality and love, which is probably unmatched in current theology in its philosophical depth and theological insight. This 'theology of the body' was developed in the early years of his papacy as a profound reflection on human sexuality, grounded in the first three chapters of Genesis, the source of all Judaeo-Christian insight into the nature of the human person. It is a valuable resource yet to be fully appropriated or assimilated in the Church.

A third point that is often unappreciated in the Church's teaching on sexuality is the way she refuses to reduce people to their desires or actions. Some fundamentalist Christian groups attack, not just homosexual actions, but homosexual people themselves as being inherently evil. On the other extreme, some gay advocates also speak as though homosexuality is the deepest part of a person's identity, at the very core of their being. The Catholic position avoids these two extremes by distinguishing being from action. It holds to the fundamental conviction that each person is unique, a child of God, to be accorded respect and dignity because she or he is created in the image of God. And this remains true independent of my actions, desires, inclinations, orientations - these cannot add to or detract from that fundamental dignity, for it is God given, it is who I most deeply am. My deepest identity is as a child of God, as one created in God's image and likeness, and not in any sexual or cultural or gender or class or other identity I might claim for myself.

For us Christians, that identity, that image of God that I am at my core and am called to become more fully, is revealed most perfectly in the humanity of Christ our Saviour. Today Cole will be baptised, baptised into Christ. He will die with Him in the waters of baptism, and be born again into the fullness of his true identity, clothing himself in Christ. As we celebrate this baptism, we are called to acknowledge once more that here, in Christ, the incarnation of God, we find our real identity revealed. We too, with Cole, are called to die to any other identity by which we identify - to surrender our whole selves, sexuality and all, into these waters, allowing Jesus to raise up from these waters all that is of Him, all that is in keeping with our true identity in Christ. Then, freed from any idolatrous identities, we can come to this table as sisters and brothers of Christ, to receive the bread He gives for the life of the world, His flesh, by which we live forever.

Fr. Robin Koning, S.J.

***